In this blog post, we will examine the scientific possibilities and ethical controversies surrounding embryo cloning technology, and consider its limitations and social implications.
Modern technology, variously referred to as human cloning, embryo cloning, or human embryo cloning, is as broad in scope as it is confusing in name. Some people think that this technology will create clones that look and think exactly like us, just like in science fiction movies, while others think that it is simply a way to help infertile couples by cloning cells. Furthermore, there are expectations that this technology will open up new possibilities for treating diseases. Although people’s understanding and expectations of this technology vary, what is important is the impact it will have on our society and human life. We should welcome technological advances, but we must also consider the ethical and social issues that accompany them.
Therefore, before discussing the permissibility or ethics of embryo cloning technology, it is necessary to first clarify its name and definition. The technology for cloning human embryos is a technology for cloning embryos in the early stages of cell development, which are not humans in the social sense, and it is more appropriate to call it embryo cloning rather than human cloning. Therefore, we will use the term embryo cloning in the following discussion. In this paper, we will clarify the definitions of what an embryo is and what level of cloning is meant by cloning. Then, we will discuss the ethics and scope of embryo cloning.
An embryo refers to the early stage of development from the moment a fertilized egg, created by the combination of sperm and egg, begins to divide at least once until it becomes a complete individual. Generally, the period up to eight weeks after fertilization is referred to as the embryonic stage. There are two types of embryo cloning. The first is by dividing the fertilized egg. Doctors have used this method to develop preimplantation diagnosis. Preimplantation diagnosis is a technology that enables genetic analysis of fertilized eggs before implantation. The second is by cloning embryos created through nuclear transfer, which includes therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.
Reproductive cloning refers to the creation of another individual that is genetically identical to an existing individual. The development of individual cloning technology has been prohibited by international agreements such as the Convention on Human Reproductive Cloning due to concerns that it could undermine human dignity. However, embryo cloning and therapeutic cloning through fertilized egg division, which are currently permitted, have not escaped ethical criticism, and it was difficult to agree on some of the key points.
Preimplantation diagnosis through fertilized egg division has made it possible to analyze the genes of fertilized eggs. This has enabled patients with congenital genetic disorders involving chromosomal abnormalities, such as muscular dystrophy and Down syndrome, to have genetically normal children. However, French biotechnologist Laurent Degos raises the following issue in his book: “Preimplantation genetic diagnosis clearly increases the chances of giving birth to a healthy baby. Biologists even openly suggest that preimplantation genetic diagnosis can be used to replace defective genes. But do babies who are likely to be unhealthy or who have defective genes really not have the right to be born?”
In fact, in our society, if we view people with disabilities violently, as if they “should not have been born,” we will inevitably face fierce moral condemnation. While we teach that people with disabilities should be treated as equal to people without disabilities, I think it is somewhat hypocritical to reject embryos with genetic defects. However, in many cases, patients with congenital genetic diseases give up having children who will suffer from the same disease. This is because, in addition to the pain caused by the disease and the financial burden, social systems, perceptions, and facilities still place significant restrictions on people with disabilities living the same life as people without disabilities.
Preimplantation diagnosis through fertilized egg division is a technology that gives such patients back their right to have children. I believe that embryo cloning is not a technology that deprives babies with defective genes of their right to be born, but rather a technology that helps healthy children who would not have been born without it.
Degos also says, “Some civic groups oppose any kind of intervention in the genes of pre-implantation embryos. Intervention in embryonic genes ultimately means that all future generations will have one more or one less gene. Even if it eliminates the risk of disease, it paves the way for eugenics.”
This is a slippery slope argument, and American philosopher Leon Kass also uses this argument to argue that advocates of cloning believe there is a legal use for cloning that is distinct from its illegal use. However, it is precisely because of the principle they put forward (ensuring that a child is healthy and has a good chance in life) that it is impossible to find such a boundary. In fact, he criticizes this argument as justifying all future artificial attempts to create “perfect” babies.
But is allowing the treatment of fundamental diseases through embryonic genetic intervention really like stepping onto a slippery slope that will ultimately justify eugenic attempts to create “perfect” babies through genetic manipulation? Looking back at Kass’s argument, he says that by recognizing the superiority of one thing over another between healthy and unhealthy, and allowing the selection of the superior, it opens up the possibility of forming superiority relationships between other characteristics and attempts at eugenic genetic manipulation.
However, I do not think that the gap between the characteristic of being healthy and other characteristics, such as being tall, can be considered a slippery slope. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health in its charter as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. However, there is an essential difference between pursuing the absence of disease and pursuing white skin or the ability to run fast. In many cases, illness restricts the physical freedom of patients and, if not treated properly, can be life-threatening and cause suffering. Therefore, the treatment of illness and support for patients are provided at the national level. If characteristics such as dark skin or not being able to run fast are considered inferior, the cause of this inferiority lies not in the characteristics themselves, but in society.
In a society that does not recognize diversity and promotes the formation of hierarchical relationships, it is the responsibility of its members to ensure diversity through their own education and the establishment of institutions, rather than eliminating all characteristics that are considered inferior. Therefore, any attempt at genetic manipulation to overcome social inferiority should be prohibited. And if there are people who suffer from feelings of inferiority due to certain characteristics that do not threaten their lives, psychological treatment should be provided to help them recover their social health, and social movements should be launched to prevent recurrence.
In this way, embryo cloning technology through the division of fertilized eggs can be seen as a technology that helps the birth of healthy children who would not have been born without this technology. Furthermore, if embryo gene intervention, which enables the fundamental treatment of intractable diseases such as muscular dystrophy, is permitted only for the purpose of disease treatment and strictly prohibited in other cases, it will be possible to remove the stigma of being a technology that leads to eugenics. Even if embryo cloning is permitted only for therapeutic purposes, there may still be concerns about illegal cloning and genetic manipulation.
However, this is a risk common to not only genetic engineering but also other dangerous yet useful technologies such as nuclear fusion. Rather than imposing an outright ban on a technology simply because there is room for misuse, we should establish reasonable standards through sufficient discussion and ensure that they are upheld. Specifically, we should recognize the freedom and purity of scientific research and allow embryo cloning for the purpose of curing diseases, while ensuring that the government continues to monitor and supervise such activities.
As such, embryo cloning technology has the potential to have a positive impact on our society. However, in order to realize this potential, it is necessary to establish ethical standards and systematic management and supervision to prevent misuse of the technology. Through this, we will be able to give hope to many people by utilizing embryo cloning technology correctly. Furthermore, we must change social perceptions and institutions to create a society where people with and without disabilities can live together. With the advancement of technology, our efforts to protect human dignity must continue endlessly.
